Create Cocos Mini Game Skeleton

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or what files are created. It lacks details on the runtime skeleton's structure or the blueprint format, leaving the agent without critical context about the tool's impact.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the core action but could benefit from a bulleted list or clearer separation of the two outputs. Every sentence earns its place, but more detail could be added without verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and six parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the blueprint's purpose, the default values' significance, or any prerequisites (e.g., project must exist). The complexity is moderate, but the description leaves significant gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (two out of six parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not explain any parameters beyond the schema's built-in descriptions, failing to compensate for the low coverage. For example, the 'gameName' and 'overwrite' parameters are not elaborated.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates a minimal Cocos Creator 3.8 mini-game runtime skeleton and a scene assembly blueprint for Editor Bridge. It specifies the verb 'Create' and the resource, and the context distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'cocos_local_apply_scene_blueprint' which applies a blueprint.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for initial setup, but does not mention when not to use it or provide comparisons with sibling tools like 'cocos_local_create_project' or 'cocos_local_create_scene_from_template'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.